Shri. Dinesh (HUF), Bangalore V. Income-tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Bangalore

ITA 3280/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0624 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE DE
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3280/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI DINESH (HUF), 3 RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA. PAN AACHD 2253 G VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GANESH R GHALE, ADVOCATE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPT. DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 3/10/2018 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)7, BENGALURU IN PARTIA LLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20.10 LAKHS IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 8 3. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESEE HAS HELD ONLY 1. 05 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. HENCE HE WROTE LETTERS TO TAHAL SILDHAR, VIRAJPET AND ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS. HE ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRI ES WITH THE MOTHER AND SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WERE RESIDING IN THE VILLAGE. THE VARIOUS TYPES OF ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO HAS B EEN NARRATED BY AO AS UNDER:- IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE'S AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. CHAITHYA V. MADRABETTY APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,10,900/- BY SELLING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS LIK E PEPPER, COFFEE SEEDS & SILVER OAK TREES. TO VERIFY THE SAME, LETTERS WERE WRITTEN TO TAHSILDAR, VEERAJPET, SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE IT ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED TO TH E TAHSILDATR VEERAJPET. IN RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS AND THE SUMMONS THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, VEERAJPET SRI.M.Y.DIWAKAR APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT O F THE TAHSILDAR, VEERAJPET ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF T HE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR AND THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE REVENU E INSPECTOR OF VEERAJPET FROM SMT. K. LAKSHMI, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE LOCAL ENQUIRY MAHAZAR WHICH INCLUDES THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE'S SISTER SMT. YAMUNA AND ALSO PROVIDE THE RTC'S. ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 8 AS PER THE RTC, THE ASSESSEE POSSESSES ONLY 1.05 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PERTAINING TO SURVEY NO. 53/3 & 53/4. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE'S MOTHER SMT. K. LAKSHMI, AND THE LOCAL ENQUIRY MAHAZAR WHICH INCLUDES THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE'S SISTER SMT. YAMUNA AND REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 85,000/-( I .E. RS. 40,000/- FROM SALE OF 16 COFFEE BAGS AND RS. 45,000/- FROM SALES OF 13 QUINTAL OF PEPPER) ONLY. WITH REGARD TO INCOME FROM SALE OF SILVER OAK TREES , THE AUTHORITIES HAVE REPORTED THAT THERE ARE NO PRO PER EVIDENCES FOR CUTTING OF SILVER OAK TREES, HOWEVER THERE ARE FEW TRACES FOR HAVING CUT THE SILVER OAK TREES, BASED ON WHICH, THE TAHSILDAR, VEERAJPET HAVE REPORTED THERE ARE AROUND 4 SILVER OAK TREES CUT AN D ITS ESTIMATED COST IS RS.48,000/-. THE TAHSILDAR, VEERAJPET HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF SILVER OAK TREE ON THE BASES OF THE PRESENT GROWTH OF SILVER OAK TREES STANDING IN THE LAND OF THE ASSESEE, WHICH IS ESTIMATED AT.RS.12,000/- PER SILVER OAK TREE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE REPORT GIVEN BY REVENUE INSPECTOR AND A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY HIS MOTHER AND SISTER SHOULD NOT ALSO BE RELIED UPON. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS SOLD 120 SILVER OAK TREES, 50 BAGS OF COFFEE AND 1 TONNE OF PEPPER AND EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20.10 LAKHS. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT TH E CONTENTION OF ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 8 THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE MOTHER AND SIST ER OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF ASSESSEE (HUF) AND HEN CE THEIR STATEMENT CAN BE RELIED UPON. ACCORDINGLY HE RESTR ICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO RS.1,33,000/- CONSISTING OF RS.85000/- EARNED FROM SALE OF COFFEE/PEPPER AND RS.48,000/- E ARNED FROM SALE OF SILVER OAK TREE. 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD CIT(A) NOTIC ED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CONTRADICTION IN THE REPORT GIVEN BY R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE AO HAD TAKEN THE SILVER OAK TREES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS 4 IN NUMBER. THE LD CIT(A) TOOK THE NU MBER OF SILVER TREES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE 20 AND ACCORDINGLY DETER MINED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.3.25 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADDITION. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESEE HAS SOLD 120 NUM BERS OF SILVER OAK TREES AND HENCE THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF SILVER OAK TREES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO 20. 7. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE CONTRADICAI TON NOTICED IN THE REPORT OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS INCREASED THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME TO RS.3.25 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD DR SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 8 8. I HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RE CORD. I NOTICED THAT THE ASSESEE HAS HELD ONLY 1.05 CRORES OF LAND THOUGH THE ASSESEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS SOLD 120 SILVER TREES AND 50 BAGS OF COFFEE HE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN T HE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE BUYERS SALE BILLS ETC TO PRO VED THE SAID CLAIM. ON THE CONTRARY I NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS C ONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ALSO MOTHER AND SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR IS PHYSICALLY INSP ECTED THE AREAS AND HAS GIVEN REPORT. I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE LD C IT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTS. SINCE THERE WAS CERTAI N CONTRADICTION IN THE REPORTS GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE L D CIT(A) HAS INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TREES SOLD BY THE ASSESSE F ROM 4 NUMBERS TO 20 NUMBERS AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AS RS.3.25 LAKHS. THE AO OBSERVATION MADE BY THE L D CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD EXTRACTED BELOW : IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE KARTHA OF THE HUF SHRI DIN ESH LIVES IN BANGALORE AND CARRIES OUT HIS OWN BUSINESS . THE LAND OF THE HUF MEASURING 1.05 ACRESIS SITUATED IN THE VILLAGE NOKHYA, PONNAMPET HOBLI, VIRAJPET TAHSI L WHICH IS MORE THAN 240 KMS FROM BANGALORE. THE MOTHER AND SISTER OF SHRI DINESH LIVE IN THIS VILLA GE AND ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRI ED OUT IN THEIR LAND. SMT. LAKSHMI, THE MOTHER OF SHRI DIN ESH, IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE HUF. THE STATEMENT OF SMT LAKSHMI AS REGARDINCOME FROM COFFEE AND PEPPER AT RS.'5,000/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TAHSILDAR WHO IN TURN HAS REPORTED THE SAME FIGURE TO ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 8 THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THIS AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THOUGH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT 20 SILVER OAK TREES CUT AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR IN THE STATEMENT OF SMT. LAKSHMI, SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REPORT OF THE RI DATED 13-0 1- 2014 SUBMITTED TO THE DY. TAHSILDAR IS CONTRADICTOR Y IN THE SENSE THAT WHILE IT MENTIONS THAT THE MARK FOR CUT TREES WERE NOT FOUND, AT THE SAME TIME IT MENTIONS THAT SOME TREES APPEAR TO BE CUT HERE AND THERE BUT COUL D NOT COUNT THEM. FURTHER, IF THE NUMBER OF TREES CUT COULD BE AS LOW AS FOUR - AS MENTIONED IN THE SUBSEQUENT REPORT OF DY. TAHSILDAR, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY DIFFICULTY COUNTING THE SAME. THE NUMBER OF STANDING TREES AT 32 AS PER REPORT, IS ALSO NOT A B IG NUMBER TO CREATE ANY DIFFICULTY FOR COUNTING THE CU T TREES. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO HO W CONTRADICTORY REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HENCE, HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NUMBER OF SILVER TREES HAS TO BE TAKEN AT 20 AS SUBMITTED IN THE STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER AND SISTER OF SHRI DINESH A ND ALSO AS PER SPOT MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE RI. THUS, THE INCOME FROM SALE OF 20 SILVER OAK TREES WILL BE RS 2,40,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TOTAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE FOR THE ASSESSCE WILL BE RS 3,25,000/- FOR THE YEAR. ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 8 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL P LACED ON RECORD I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD CIT(A) IS A WELL REASONED ORDER AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CI T(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 17 TH DECEMBER, 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.3280 /BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 8 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. .. 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED